

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Josh Bell, ACLU, (212) 549-2508 or 2666; media@aclu.org
The American Civil Liberties Union today called on President Obama to press Puerto Rican leaders about a pattern of police brutality and governmental suppression of First Amendment rights during his scheduled visit Tuesday to the U.S. commonwealth. In a letter sent today to the president, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero highlights ACLU interviews that reveal systematic violations of freedoms of speech, peaceable assembly and freedom from violence through police assaults on students, labor leaders, demonstrators, journalists and low-income, black and Dominican communities on a regular basis.
The ACLU will also raise these serious concerns in full-page ads to be taken out Tuesday in Puerto Rico's largest Spanish-language newspaper El Nuevo Dia and its only English-language newspaper The Daily Sun. An ad will also run Sunday through Tuesday in New York's El Diario La Prensa, one of the nation's largest Spanish-language newspapers.
"In contrast to recent non-violent protests in Wisconsin, Puerto Rican police have cracked down violently on protestors in the U.S. territory in blatant violation of their constitutional and human rights," Romero said in the letter. "The severity and scope of police abuse documented by the ACLU are on a level that would not be tolerated in the 50 states."
Under the U.S. Constitution, Puerto Ricans are entitled to the same rights and protections as U.S. citizens.
The ACLU of Puerto Rico has verified numerous incidents of police abuse since 2004. These incidents have increased in their frequency and intensity over the last two years. University of Puerto Rico students at peaceful protests have been subjected to violent attacks and arrest while female students have been inappropriately touched by police officers during the protests. Union leaders and protesters outside the Capitol Building and other public spaces have been pepper sprayed, beaten and shot at with rubber bullets by police. Video of numerous incidents has been posted on YouTube. A compilation can be found at:
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-human-rights/police-abuse-puerto-rico
This year the national office of the ACLU conducted fact-finding research in Puerto Rico and last month convened a high-level delegation in the commonwealth that included such notables as actor Rosie Perez and baseball legend Carlos Delgado. The delegation met with government officials including the secretary of state, attorney general, the police superintendent and legislators of both the majority and the minority parties. The ACLU will issue a comprehensive report documenting the research findings in September.
The U.S. Department of Justice has been conducting an inquiry into these abuses, and the ACLU has provided information to the agency. This week in Washington Romero, along with Angelo Falcon of the National Institute for Latino Policy and Juan Cartagena of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, discussed the issue with members of the House and Senate, as well as representatives from the Justice Department and Department of Education.
"The federal government must intervene to ensure constitutional and human rights in Puerto Rico are respected," Romero said in his letter to the president. "We applaud your administration's vigorous support for the free speech and assembly rights of civil society in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. However, as we turn our eyes toward abuses in other countries, we cannot turn a blind eye toward our own."
Additional information is available online at: www.aclu.org/puertorico
The full text of the letter can be found at:
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-human-rights/letter-president-obama-puerto-rico and below:
June 9, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama,
I am writing to raise the ACLU's concerns about recent restrictions on the rights to free speech, peaceful assembly, and freedom from police violence and abuse in Puerto Rico. Currently, a Department of Justice investigation of the Puerto Rico Police Department is underway for a pattern and practice of police misconduct. As you prepare for your historic trip to Puerto Rico, we think that it is important for you to be aware of the serious allegations of human rights abuses against the citizens of Puerto Rico. The severity and scope of police abuse documented by the ACLU are on a level that would not be tolerated in the fifty states. I am writing today to urge you to raise these urgent issues with the leadership of Puerto Rico and to make you aware that we understand that the Puerto Rican government is endeavoring to thwart this most necessary DOJ investigation.
We would also like you to be aware that the ACLU is planning to take out a full page advertisement in one of the leading newspapers using the occasion of your important visit to highlight the need for systemic reform and oversight of policing practices on the island.
The Puerto Rico Police Department is the second largest police force in the country, second only to the NYPD. Based on evidence documented by the ACLU, this police department has engaged in a level of brutality against U.S. citizens and acted with such a level of impunity, that it shocks the conscience. Since 2004, the ACLU of Puerto Rico has documented numerous incidents of serious police misconduct in Puerto Rico. These incidents have increased both in their frequency and intensity since 2008, at which time the Department of Justice opened an investigation in response to our complaints. Most recently, the national office of the ACLU conducted fact-finding research in Puerto Rico in March-May 2011, and convened a high-level delegation that conducted a two-day fact-finding mission in May 2011 to research the rise in police brutality in the Commonwealth. This letter details a few of those abuses, but for additional background, we have attached our preliminary findings to this letter. The ACLU will issue a final report documenting our findings in September 2011.
In contrast to recent non-violent protests in Wisconsin, the Puerto Rican police have cracked down violently on protestors in the U.S. territory in blatant violation of their constitutional and human rights. The ACLU has documented numerous incidents in which individuals protesting at the University of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rican Capitol building steps, the Supreme Court, and other locations during the past two years have been subjected to beatings by police armed with night sticks, tear gas, and pepper spray. Heavily armed riot squad teams have seriously restricted constitutionally protected expression and unjustifiably violated protestors' human rights.
Starting in the summer of 2010, students of the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) have been involved in protests in opposition to an enrollment fee imposed by the UPR administration, after massive administration cuts to the university's budget. In order to quash the largely peaceful protests, the government of Puerto Rico activated the riot squad unit and other police units, resorting to excessive force against student protesters on numerous occasions. According to our research and credible news reports, students have been beaten with nightsticks, maced with pepper spray, tasered, and shot at with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters. Police have also applied pressure-point techniques on immobilized student protesters, including application of pressure in the necks, eyes and jaws of the protesters to provoke pain, sometimes even causing unconsciousness. Female students have been sexually harassed and groped by police.
Since September 2009, union leaders and workers peacefully protesting the mass firing of 23,000 public workers have also faced police violence, including beatings with night sticks, tear gassing and pepper spray at close range. And on June 25, 2010, the President of the Puerto Rico Senate cut off public access to legislative sessions, even though it is mandated that all sessions should be open to the public. Five days later, at a protest outside the Capitol Building over the closing of access to legislative sessions, police pepper-sprayed and tear-gassed protestors, and riot squad police beat protesters with nightsticks. A member of the legislature's minority party was hit with nightsticks and pepper-sprayed, and a ligament in her arm was torn by riot squad officers. In one case, police beat and dragged a mother who attempted to shield her 17-year-old daughter from physical abuse.
Journalists attempting to cover these incidents have faced physical assaults by police and other government-imposed restrictions. These have included physical obstruction by police and restriction of areas for press coverage, including at protest sites and at Senate legislative sessions.
Outside of the protest context, the ACLU and ACLU of Puerto Rico have identified a pattern and practice of severe police brutality against low-income communities and communities of African and/or Dominican descent, including excessive use of force by the Puerto Rico Police Department's anti-drug units in public housing projects. In these cases, we have found that victims of severe police brutality, including lethal force, face serious obstacles to securing justice. The government's failure to hold officers accountable for misconduct or excessive use of force has endowed these officers with a sense of impunity. Moreover, we have identified serious gaps in the existing oversight and disciplinary mechanisms for police who use excessive force.
The federal government must intervene to ensure constitutional and human rights in Puerto Rico. I urge you to discuss with the Puerto Rican government leaders the need to prioritize better training, supervision, control, and monitoring of officers' use of force to ensure all Puerto Ricans are safe from unlawful police violence and free to exercise their First Amendment rights. We applaud your Administration's vigorous support for the free speech and assembly rights of civil society in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. However, as we turn our eyes toward abuses in other countries, we cannot turn a blind eye toward our own. We hope that the Department of Justice will soon intervene, but we also hope that you will use the opportunity of your visit to Puerto Rico next week to send the message that the federal government will not tolerate violent and unlawful restrictions on free speech and peaceful assembly in the Commonwealth.
As a person of Puerto Rican descent, with family and friends on the island, I am both delighted about your visit and yet gravely concerned that your presence will be construed by some as an endorsement of government behavior that is antithetical to the protection of civil liberties and civil rights. I would be happy to brief your staff on our fact finding mission and to answer any questions that you may have. I can be reached at aromero@aclu.org or at (212) 549-2501.
Sincerely,
Anthony Romero
cc: The Honorable Eric Holder
Attachments:
Letter from Anthony Romero to Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, March 10, 2011
Preliminary Findings of the ACLU Human Rights Documentation Research May 27, 2011
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly," said leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus, "it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color."
In what's being called an "exceedingly rare" move, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is blocking the promotion of two Black and two female colonels to one-star generals,
The New York Times reported Friday that some senior US military officials are questioning whether Hegseth acted out of animus toward Black people and women after the defense secretary blocked the promotion of the four officers despite the repeated objections of Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, who touted what the Times called the colonels' "decadeslong records of exemplary service."
Military officials told the Times that Hegseth's chief of staff, Lt. Col. Ricky Buria, got into a heated exchange with Driscoll last summer over the promotion of another officer, Maj. Gen. Antoinette Gant—a combat veteran of the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—to command the Military District of Washington, DC.
Such a promotion would have placed Gant in charge of numerous events at which she would likely be seen publicly with President Donald Trump. According to multiple military officials, Buria told Driscoll that Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer.
Pete Hegseth looked at a list of qualified officers and decided Black leaders and women had to go.That’s not leadership. It’s discrimination in plain sight.And every Republican who stays silent is complicit.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Norma Torres (@normajtorres.bsky.social) March 27, 2026 at 10:10 AM
A shocked Driscoll reportedly replied that "the president is not racist or sexist," an assessment that flies in the face of countless racist and sexist statements by the president, both before and during both of his White House terms.
Buria called the officials' account of his exchange with Driscoll "completely false."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to discuss the matter beyond saying that Hegseth is “doing a tremendous job restoring meritocracy throughout the ranks at the Pentagon, as President Trump directed him to do.”
Military officials told the Times that one of the Black colonels whose promotion was blocked by Hegseth wrote a paper nearly 15 years ago historically analyzing differences between Black and white soldiers' roles in the Army. One of the female colonels, a logistics officer, was held back because she was deployed in Afghanistan during the US withdrawal whose foundation was laid by Trump during his first term. It is unclear why the two other colonels were denied promotions.
Although more than 40% of current active duty US troops are people of color, military leadership remains overwhelmingly comprised of white men. Hegseth, who declared a "frontal assault" on the "whores to wokesters" who he said rose up through the ranks during the Biden administration, told an audience during a 250th anniversary ceremony for the US Navy that "your diversity is not your strength."
Hegseth has argued that women should not serve in combat roles, although he later walked back his assertion amid pushback from senators during his confirmation process. Still, since Trump returned to office, every service branch chief and 9 of the military’s 10 combat commanders are white men.
Leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus issued a joint statement Friday calling Hegseth's blocking of the four colonels' promotions "outrageous and wrong."
"The claim that Hegseth’s chief of staff told the army secretary Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events is racist, sexist, and extremely concerning," wrote the lawmakers, Reps. Yvette Clarke (NY), Teresa Leger Fernández (NM), Emilia Sykes (Ohio), Hillary Scholten (Mich.), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.).
"Time and time again, Trump and his administration have shown us exactly who they are—attacking and undermining Black people and women in the military, public servants, and women in power," the congressional leaders asserted. "It is clear they are trying to erase Black and women’s leadership and history."
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly, it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color," their statement said.
"We've long known that Pete Hegseth is an unfit and unqualified secretary of defense appointed by Trump," the lawmakers added. "So it is absurd, ironic, and beyond inappropriate that he of all people would deny these promotions to officers with records of exemplary service. America's servicemembers deserve so much better.”
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also issued a statement reading, "If these reports are accurate, Secretary Hegseth's decision to remove four decorated officers from a promotion list after having been selected by their peers for their merit and performance is not only outrageous, it would be illegal."
"Denying the promotions of individual officers based on their race or gender would betray every principle of merit-based service military officers uphold throughout their careers," Reed added.
Several congressional colleagues weighed in, like Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran who lost her legs when an Iraqi defending his homeland from US invasion shot down the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting. Duckworth said on Bluesky: "He says he wants to bring meritocracy back to our military. He says he has our warfighters' backs. But here he is, the most unqualified SecDef in history, denying troops a promotion that their fellow warfighters decided they've earned. Hegseth is a disgrace to our heroes."
Other observers also condemned Hegseth's move, with historian Virginia Scharff accusing him of "undermining national security with his racism and misogyny," and City University of New York English Chair Jonathan Gray decrying the "gutter racist" who "should be hounded from public life for the damage he’s caused."
More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."